bug#31159: Reverse order for old grub.cfg entries

[Mathieu Othacehe]

Hi,

This seems like a good idea ! If we decide to make it unconditional the
patch attached does the job. We can also make it configurable in
bootloader-configuration for instance.

WDYT ?

Mathieu

>From 3ec63fb55a074b547724c70d560cc61776c9298e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mathieu Othacehe <address@hidden>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:23:00 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] scripts: system: Sort profile generations in reverse order.

* guix/scripts/system.scm (profile-boot-parameters): Reverse
generation-numbers list. This allows old generations to be listed from most
recent to oldest in bootloaders configuration files.
---
 guix/scripts/system.scm | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/guix/scripts/system.scm b/guix/scripts/system.scm
index b50cabc..7e1363c 100644
--- a/guix/scripts/system.scm
+++ b/guix/scripts/system.scm
@@ -393,9 +393,11 @@ it atomically, and then run OS's activation script."
                   "~Y-~m-~d ~H:~M")))
 
 (define* (profile-boot-parameters #:optional (profile %system-profile)
-                                  (numbers (generation-numbers profile)))
-  "Return a list of 'boot-parameters' for the generations of PROFILE specified 
by
-NUMBERS, which is a list of generation numbers."
+                                  (numbers
+                                   (reverse (generation-numbers profile))))
+  "Return a list of 'boot-parameters' for the generations of PROFILE specified
+by NUMBERS, which is a list of generation numbers. The list is ordered from
+the most recent to the oldest profiles."
   (define (system->boot-parameters system number time)
     (unless-file-not-found
      (let* ((params           (read-boot-parameters-file system))
-- 
2.7.4


Mark H Weaver writes:

> Vagrant Cascadian <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> This is a pretty minor issue, but I've found that the "GNU system, old
>> configurations..." part of the menu would be nicer if the most recent
>> generations were listed at the top, rather than the oldest generations.
>>
>> Currently it lists generation 1 as the first entry in the list, and if
>> I've got 50+ generations installed and I don't want to boot the current
>> generation, I'm most likely going to want to revert to one of the more
>> recent generations rather than the very oldest.
>
> I agree that it would be better to reverse the order of these entries.
>
>     Thanks,
>       Mark